West Tisbury residents who live near the airport told the town selectmen last week that noise from low-flying planes had reached an unbearable level this summer.

Dave Stein and Henry Geller, who live in Vineyard Meadow Farms, said they believe a voluntary noise abatement program at the airport is not being followed.

Presenting the board with a detailed written report at its Wednesday meeting, both men said they were speaking for other neighbors who live southeast and southwest of the airport.

“Although the residents who purchased or built homes in the airport vicinity were aware there would be airplane noise, we never imagined blatant disregard for proper procedures. Nor did we imagine, large, very loud commercial jets flying back and forth to the Island for four months a year,” they wrote in part.

Mr. Stein, a pilot, said he built his house 10 years ago near the airport for convenience. He said he had a reasonable expectation of noise, but in recent years it has grown to an unbearable level.

“It’s the difference between not be able to continue a conversation 20 times a day, and hearing a small relatively innocuous noise,” said Mr. Geller.

A voluntary noise abatement program adopted by the airport some years ago is routinely ignored, the men said, and complaints to airport management about the problem have gone unheeded. “Although we received lip service, nothing was ever done,” the report said. “Messages left were never returned.”

The selectmen expressed sympathy for the problem but were unsure about the suggestion that the town consider adopting an ordinance, noting among other things that the airport lies in both Edgartown and West Tisbury.

Mr. Stein told the board he had spoken with the chief pilot of Cape Air several times around mid-August, who then contacted all pilots about the issue. Soon after, Mr. Stein recorded 23 Cape Air flights that still flew low directly over his house.

The selectmen suggested contacting Dan Wolf, president of Cape Air and Cape and Islands state senator. Mr. Stein said he had sent two letters to Mr. Wolf two years ago and did not receive a reply. The selectmen offered to help Mr. Stein get in touch with the senator.

The meeting began with a moment of silence and also quiet remarks for Ernest Mendendall, the recently retired town building inspector who died Sept. 15.

“He left us too soon; Ernie served the town honorably and well,” selectman Richard Knabel said.

“The kindness and compassion he had for this community . . . . people like him make our community what it is today,” said Jeffrey (Skipper) Manter 3rd.

Police chief Dan Rossi said the department is in the process of obtaining accreditation. Mr. Rossi explained the process in detail and said it will begin with a self-evaluation of the department. As a first step, selectmen agreed to endorse the department’s existing rules and regulations.

They also gave their blessing to an early-stage plan by town herring officer John Hoy to reopen the channel at James Pond. The state Division of Marine Fisheries recently sent a letter to the town urging a management plan for the north shore Great Pond, specifically pertaining to diadromous fish including, herring, eels and white perch. Mr. Hoy said the opening to the pond is badly shoaled, despite volunteer efforts last year to dig out the cut by hand. “It’s really shallow . . . . the water is about four inches deep,” he said, then describing a scene last spring when hundreds of herring became trapped in shallow pools and did not survive.

Mr. Hoy said he had since contacted riparian owners, including Bill Graham, about a plan to open the cut. Mr. Hoy said all the riparian owners are generally in favor of the idea. He said the most efficient way to do the work is with a small track excavator; he said one idea would be to use a Packer barge to bring the excavator around to the beachfront by water. He said there would be some cost, although no firm estimates have been developed, and he thought volunteer manpower could easily be recruited in the off season.

He said the state could issue an emergency order and “ram it down our throats,” but it would be better for the town to create a management plan that includes maintenance of the channel. Mr. Hoy said opening up the channel would greatly improve the health of the pond, which has become stagnant. Selectmen said they would write a letter supporting the efforts. “We’ll take it a step at a time,” board chairman Cynthia Mitchell said.

Comments (36)

Annoyed, Edgartown

If you think that area is noisy spend time in Edgartown anywhere near Starbuck Neck. A bi-plane from Katama circles constantly. I've heard from numerous people on how annoying this particular plane is. I find it hard to believe there's not some type of noise regulation.

My wife and I moved to Ormond Beach, Florida about 17 years ago when the nearby airport (over two miles away) only had a few planes that never bothered anyone. Since then, the City has handed out tax breaks and several flight schools eventually opened. There are times when more than 10 aircraft do training here (including Embry Riddle University) and the planes are constantly one behind the other. A noise abatement committee was formed and after two months and the City hiring a consultant concluded with, the FAA has responsibility for all aircraft when in the air and the City could only ask them to voluntarily follow a noise abatement path. That is a joke. Most of the future pilots are from out of town and when doing their solo flights could care less where they are as long as they get back to the airport. Almost every time after complaining, planes would go directly over my house. After wasting time from 2006 to 2014 I threw in the towel because the City won't do anything and the FAA, what a joke. More at: http://echelberry.org/ormond-beach-airport/ormond-beach-airport-page-1.htm

Dave Stein, West Tisbury
First, thanks to the Gazette for this article. Much appreciated.
And thanks to those of you who got back to me on my airport noise posting on Facebook (Islanders Talk) of a few weeks ago. We are making some progress, starting with our town, West Tisbury. The WT Board of Selectmen were interested and helpful.
I know that Chilmark has had their airplane noise issues in the past as well. Those are documented on the airport's website. I also now know, thanks to my Facebook post, that some Edgartown, OB, and Tisbury residents are having airplane noise issues. . Henry Geller (not Harry, as stated in the article) and I will present at the MV Airport Commission meeting in November. (By the way, other than that minor error, the reporting was accurate. Good job, Heather Hamacek at the MV Gazette.)
I've been asked this question a dozen times. "Why did you move near an airport and now complain about the noise?" The question seems logical, but the real situation is different from what you'd expect.
The airport has published noise abatement procedures. Here they are for you to read: http://www.mvyairport.com/aboutmvy/noise.php Click on the links and you can see maps.
The answer to the question above is simple. If pilots follow the recommended noise abatement procedures, we will be happy, satisfied, and have no further complaints. Period. End of story.
Many pilots are unaware of, or completely disregard, these recommended routes into, and out of, the Vineyard. The procedures are voluntary, but the airport, up until now, has done nothing to make pilots aware of those procedures. They had committed to educate pilots in the past as part of their "Master Plan." However, the word "noise" does not appear once in the airport's "Master Plan." That is quite upsetting to a lot of us plagued by increasing and non-compliant airport noise.
You may notice from the documents that pilots should not overfly residential areas. But that is precisely what they are doing, regularly, on some days starting at 6:30 in the morning, continuing all day. Cape Air, private pilots, charters.
We had a JetBlue flight (#1224) depart, full power, at 12:23 am one morning this summer. If you have ever had a departing Cape Air Cessna fly over your house, full power, at 200 feet or less when you are having dinner, or are sleeping, you would quickly understand our plight.
We are happy living where we are. We enjoy seeing planes taking off and landing. I trust most of my West Tisbury neighbors feel the same way--when pilots obey the noise abatement procedures.
We are merely demanding that pilots comply with the published noise abatement procedures that were developed jointly by the airport, the FAA, and airplane manufacturers. Simple, right? A lot of money was spent on all that. To what end? . Airplanes must not fly over our homes. Jets must depart the airport using prescribed power settings to avoid the serious noise pollution we have to deal with dozens of times a day during the summer and regularly through the rest of the year. Why should I have to pause a phone call or a discussion on my deck during breakfast, lunch, or dinner, because some jet pilot doesn't care at all about the noise his/her plane makes?
I do want to give credit to "the new" MV Airport Commission. A few of the members have been quite empathetic and helpful, even as they have been dealing with a pretty challenging situation. For a few months, we have patiently waited on line. Now we hope we can work with them to get this situation resolved, once and for all, just among ourselves.
PM me on Facebook, DM me on Twitter (@davestei) or send me an email at my first name(underscore)lastname@comcast.net, if you'd like to join our growing list of people who demand that pilots flying in and out of the Vineyard respect our Island and the people who live here.

As a former military pilot, I can tell you that there is nothing worse than a fully-loaded aircraft NOT taking off at full power. Full thrust on take-off is a necessity to climb to cruising altitude. Please learn more about the dynamics of flight before you ask pilots or airlines to cut back on power during take-off. The results, if what you are asking for happened, could be catastrophic and as an aside, in your back yard. And, BTW, jet pilots DO care about noise but their first, and really only, responsibility is to the safe operation of their aircraft and the safety of their passengers.

First and most important, thanks for your service. I am sincere about that, "Concerned Resident."
I was not a military pilot, but a private pilot. I flew in and out of the Vineyard hundreds of times VFR and IFR. But, I can assure you I have no where near your experience or perspective as a pilot.
With that said, we have a different opinion on this.
I've flown, as a passenger, all over the world. In noise sensitive areas, pilots climb to 1,000 or 2,000 feet depending on noise abatement procedures and then back off on power to preserve the peace and quiet of the neighborhoods over which they fly. Do you agree that these noise abatement procedures have been approved for safety by the airports in question and the FAA (at least here in the U.S.)? Would the FAA approve a noise abatement procedure that wasn't safe? Or would the airport? I don't think so.
To be clear: I don't believe that either the airport or the FAA would have approved the noise abatement procedures here were they not safe. Do you agree with that?
I've been on dozens of Cape Air flights, Concerned Resident, where there were no other inbound or outbound traffic, and they--the pilots--have made the decision to turn left or right, just off the runway to make a quicker trip to their destination. That's one of the actions we are trying to stop.
By the way, flying in or out of White Plains, NY, Logan (depending on active runway), and John Wayne (Orange County, CA.) will allow you to see that powering back according to manufacturers' specs and FAA and airport oversight is safe for the passengers and give airport neighbors the peace they deserve.
Again, we are only asking that pilots obey existing, safe, proven, and community-friendly noise abatement procedures.

Dave, feel free to stay at my place for a week, I'm directly down the centerline of the longest runway at Logan. A majority of the international jumbo jets depart between 6pm-midnight, putting a fan on does the trick, I recommend it!

While I do not live near the airport and do not have to deal with the unabating disturbances of flights overhead for 4 months out of the year, I feel very much for this group of neighbors.
I live right by a VTA terminus and can attest to how disruptive all of this can be to one's peace and quiet. I don't believe it was always this way. The buses, old and noisy, are nearly as loud as a jet is when at a distance. Being around them on a regular basis requires ear protection, and surely the VTA buses violate noise ordinances, too – however temporary their offense may be.
It's good this issue is being brought up publicly, Dave!

It's been said by many on Facebook. The airspace cannot simply be regulated like you're proposing. Unless you're with the FAA you wouldn't know where to even begin trying to get that to happen. There's VOLUNTARY noise abatement procedures in effect, because (guess what?) planes are a lot like cars. We have the freedom to travel wherever in the air as cars do on the ground. While this doesn't mean pilots should ignore them, they are posted all over the airport operations pilot lounge. The information is out there. Do you want to shut down roads due to loud motorcycles also?

I seriously doubt an airplane was over your house at 200 feet. That's a bit of sensationalism on your part. If you are a pilot (as the article states) you know quite well that most airplanes departing the 'traffic pattern' are WELL ABOVE that BEFORE leaving the airport perimeter. Due to traffic, the tower may say 'turn as soon as altitude and speed permit'. Or Cape departure may assign a turn to expedite the departure of other traffic. As you should be aware, the majority of runway 24 departures make a right turn over where you bought your home. The same as they have been doing since the airport was built during WW 2.
The noise abatement procedures are posted, and altitude is the pilots best friend for safety, and it acts as a natural sound buffer for those of you who chose to purchase a home in the proximity of the airport. As you know, but neglected to state, the older loud stage 2 jets are largely non-existent anymore and will face a full ban in the USA as of December. Most if not all of the current jets in use are stage 3 or 4 and are a lot quieter than prop planes (if the pilot doesn't reduce rpm on departure after reaching a safe altitude.) Everyone comes here, buys their piece of paradise and then wants to change things. I don't like it when my neighbors have renters that make noise. I don't like hearing the noise from the 'wedding mill's all over. But tough. That's it. That's what greases the economy and I have to live with it for a few months. The airport is there and its not going away. Tisbury complains about the traffic from the ferry, but they like the $$$ from the tourists and their port 'fees' collected from the SSA. If 'Jetblue' flew 'full power' over your house late at night (not their usual schedule) it was most likely to accommodate passengers from earlier weather delays during the day. And unless you can show us your type rating in the Embraer 190, you have no clue what their power setting (EPR) was... but I'm sure it was in the interest of safety so that if one engine failed, the other would keep the plane flying.

Ms Brown
If you lived nearby Long Point you would know Mr Stein is correct
There are many planes both taking off and especially landing that are below 200'
Although landing noise is not as bad as taking off noise it us still amazing to see an aircraft that low flying over
Before you dismiss what is being said as sensationalism, why don't you come to the end of VMFR and spend an hour or so there around mid day
There is actually a section of land west of Charles Neck Way that lines up with the runway
What the pilots are doing is banking before they get to Thumb Point/Scrubby Neck Farm Road
Of they turned there they would not be over residences
ie: less noise= less complaints=safer conditions
If a plane did have an issue, the flight patterns now could be catastrophic
Crashing into a house or several houses because they want to turn ASAP and not wait for clearer ground below
Take a look at google maps
VMFR does not line up with the runway
It's well to the east
And they are banking in from the east when landing as well
Move the flight pattern west 1/4 mile

I looked at the map. Your area is slightly to the east of the centerline of runway 6-24. When a pilot is assigned 'runway heading' it MUST be flown. If the wind is from the west, it would put the ground track over your neighborhood on a departure from rwy 24. What possibly 'could' be done is if you can get cape approach to assign a 270 heading..but that just shifts the flight path over someone else's house. As far as landing, the "VOR 6 approach would put landing aircraft over your area in a descent from 820' at 'jodle' intersection which is 3 miles out...on the way down to 382 feet 2.4 miles from the end of runway 6. Many more aircraft now use the GPS to runway 6 which is 5 degrees west of the other approach...at 2 miles from the end of the runway the descent begins from 740 feet to reach 250 AT the runway. So when the approaches are conducted to Runway 6 you will see airplanes on a PUBLISHED straight in approach. Nothing can be done about that. There are prescribed altitudes contained in the 'terps' (terminal area procedures) if you feel the need to educate yourself on the required obstruction clearances etc. Unless one is trained as a weather observer, or has experience observing actual aircraft with CONFIRMED altitudes in the pattern, just throwing a number out there '200 feet over my house' is nonsense. If an aircraft descended below the prescribed altitudes on approach, multiple 'low altitude' alerts are issued. Generally pilots who descend below the prescribed altitudes on instrument approaches run into 'cumulus granite'= mountains.

And if in fact someone is that low over your home, write down the N#, look it up (its a public record) and call the owner of the plane and tell them to 'knock it off'. Or perhaps go anchor a boat full of lobster bait in front of their dock.

I support Dave Stein's efforts to have these voluntary noise abatement procedures, which are routinely ignored, made mandatory. For instance, there should be a steep financial cost involved to airlines and private planes who want/need to take off and land before and after reasonable hours. I live far further from the airport than Dave and have experienced 200-foot flyovers, so yes, this happens. And from my perspective, Cape Air is not the problem. It's the jets, private and commercial, that make the most noise.

I always chuckle when someone buys a home next to the airport then complains about the pre-existing use. You are entitled to complain all you want, but please, have some accurate instead of inflammatory statements. Are you a pilot? if you were, you would KNOW that the commercial and private jets operate under IFR (instrument flight rules) 99% of the time. Guess what their IFR clearance is? "fly runway heading, maintain 2000, EXPECT XXXX altitude in 10 minutes. So the INITIAL ALTITUDE is 2000 feet. The heading from runway 24 is actually 236 degrees....STRAIGHT OUT to the water until turned ON COURSE. By the time the aircraft has 'checked in' with Cape departure, they are easily at 2000 feet and climbing before being turned "on course' which 'may' bring them over your neighborhood... at a minimum of 2000 feet, not 200. So save the sensationalism and try to be accurate. By the way, the airport is part of the national airspace system, and receives federal grant money, so every little banana republic cannot impose their unnecessary politically driven rules against those who pay for the system via their fuel taxes. Oh and one more thing. A jet is a Part 25 airplane. As such the pilot is REQUIRED to fly certain climb segments, and the initial is STRAIGHT OUT is to 1500 feet. V1 decision speed on the runway. VR- rotate. V2 Climb to 400 feet, accelerate to V2+10 while cleaning up the flaps... to 1500. Accelerate to Enroute climb... so this talk of '200 feet' over your house is pure nonsense. These speeds and altitudes are reached prior to leaving the airport boundary, and many times, prior to the end of the departure runway.

your right,both comments. I love when people have an accurate tape measure that lets them know those planes are "200 ft" above them, these plane provide a service, leisure,and a getaway for many people here. I live on the other end of runway 24, I love when a sweet jet or helicopter flys in , in fact I wish they could fly lower so I can behold the raw power, its the sound of freedom, and freedom is good for this island...

AS I wrote
Come and see for yourself
It does no good to try and explain something to someone with such a skewed opinion and expertise regarding a situation they know nothing about
They are not at 2000' and all of your 'I doubt its' just shows how close minded you are to a real situation that has persisted for years.
I have had my property for close to 30yrs and yes - it has gotten a lot worse due to the flagrant/blatant disregard for proper flight management near a residential area.
What is needed is enforcement of existing regulations that have been put in place to attempt to mitigate part of an issue that affects admittedly a small group of residents compared to the whole Island population.
Does that make us less than, or less deserving of proper procedure?
If a plane comes in or takes off to low, there should be strict and heavy fines, that would get the attention of the offenders.
We knew where we were buying and building, but that does not give pilots the right to disrespect the rules that were put in place to provide safe landing and take offs because they can.
Ms. Brown, please get off your high horse and stop with the 'you are being sensationalists, and don't know what your talking about'
I think it may be the other way around here.
Please come and see for yourself if YOU don't believe what is being written or reported.
From what I see in the written comments, there are many that agree that some planes are flying too low and not where they are supposed to be.
Nobody is saying 'I bought - built near an airport and did not know there would be planes flying over' just that the rules need to be followed/observed.

Thank you Dave and Henry for raising this issue. It is about time . I live south west of the airport and can attest to the problem.
When I bought my property back in the late 1990s I spent some time and effort looking into whether thie airport noise was a problem. Yes both Cape Air and smaller planes occasionally came overhead but it never bothered me that much. For years I've enjoyed sitting on my deck on a Sunday afternoon during the summer. A few years ago, it started to become apparent that the planes, especially Cape Air were coming overhead and making far more noise. This year, it became so bad, that I no longer can sit with any peace at all. Facing south west, the planes were usually in front of me, but now they are either directly overhead or even behind, which means they are taking off and immediately banking to starboard. I'm no expert, but I'd say 1-200 feet high seems right. The sound is absolutely thunderous.
On another issue, where is our state senator, Mr Wolf on this.? Dave has written to him twice in his capacity as chairman and owner of Cape Air, and he didn't even have the courtesy to respond what a nerve, especially as he is supposed to represent our interests as State Senator. One would think there is a serious potential conflict of interest here, especially as this is an accusation that Mr Wolf has previously had to face. I'd like to have him come down to West Tisbury sometime on a Sunday in summer and hear the problem for himself.
Good job Dave. I support you all the way and will be happy to work with you to clean up this situation once an for all.

@Mike WT. I know more than you will ever about operating aircraft. As an airline transport rated pilot with Jet type ratings, you would have to spend thousands of hours and thirty years in the air to come close to my experience. So whine all you want, but the only rules FAR(Federal Aviation Regulations) with respect to minimum altitudes over thickly settled areas or sparsely settled areas have an exception: WHEN TAKING OFF OR LANDING. Maybe you should read the rules before spewing off at someone who has forgotten more than you will ever know about the rules. Having said that,every jet pilot is required to follow the Part 25 takeoff procedure that I detailed before. Its there for safety in the event of an engine failure. As such most of the jet aircraft are well above the intial IFR clearance altitude of 2000 feet PRIOR to leaving the airport perimeter. That is a fact. If you are interested in accuracy (I doubt it) you can be a device that shows the transponder code of an aircraft, as well as the altitude put out by the mode-c or mode-a. Until then, stop making baseless statements about '200 feet over my house'.

Ms Brown,
Book knowledge and experience are good, which you may have, it does not make you right when actual events and observations are being discussed.
When you worked at your profession did you ignore actual events because you had not experienced them, or were against written regulations - maybe but I would hope not.
Spouting off about your credentials does not make what we have observed incorrect.
Come see for yourself

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

What I said above. This whole thing's a joke. What's next, no driving on the roads after 10pm because it's noisy? Limit the cars on the island because they're too loud and bothering people on a summer's afternoon? Give me a break.

We live in a part of WT that actually gets more noise when pilots do observe noise abatement than when they don't. That said, How much of the noise objectors' complaints are based on overall numbers of fights rather than specific trajectories of particular planes? As our little patch of heaven becomes ever more popular (and lucrative for those who service the high end summer visitors), isn't this just a retread of the five corners debate? We want the growth, and income, but not the consequences. Whose ox should be gored?

Is there a way to confirm that each flight is following existing rules? Does the FAA endorse any monitoring equipment the airport could install to establish an aircraft's altitude when it crosses into or out of the airport's grounds?
Is there an app that could triangulate home owners' cell phones video and establish an aircraft is not where it should be - vertically or horizontally?

You're right, a lot of good info about the rules has been posted so far. Not being a pilot, I have learned quite a bit from them.
My opinions are easily swayed by facts, and I was hoping to learn if there's any means to establish a plane's altitude at a certain location - other than that plane's own instruments. If the airport were able to say that a plane left its property at 350' as it climbed away, a claim that the plane went overhead at 200' could be understood to be hyperbole instead of actual fact.
Maybe altitude is the wrong way to tackle this - OSHA has ways of regulating noise at the workplace, perhaps documenting the intervals and quantity of sound would be a better way to present the problem?

@just questions. FAA Part 36 aircraft certification assigns a 'stage' 1,2,3, or 4 to certification of Jets based on 3 measurements for noise: takeoff, landing, and sideline. The FAA has banned stage 1. Stage 2 most of which are not flying are banned as of December. So that leaves the quieter stage 3/4 flying. FAA has conducted an extensive "Part 150' noise study @KMVY. The mult-year report can be found here.
http://www.mvyairport.com/aboutmvy/noise.php
Years ago the ability to travel in a private jet was left to the very rich. Things changed when the 'fractional' industry was 'born'. What that did was sell 'shares' to people who would have otherwise been unable to purchase, or justify that expenditure and maintain/crew/hangar etc a 'whole' airplane. So it created more of a 'demand', and thus more traffic overhead. In simple terms, instead of having to be ultra rich to own/travel by jet, it opened the door to the 'moderately rich' and wealthy type. Not unlike living next to a 'time share' building with residents owning one out of 52 weeks, so every week it was in use vs. one whose residents would only visit on occasion. Unfortunately for those under the flight path, it means more jet traffic. Think about it,if the share of the airplane is sold in 1/16, that means 16 of them are coming in for cocktails at 5pm instead of one. do the math.

Having read the Gazette article regarding aircraft noise and the many comments on-line perhaps I can offer some insights into this issue.
I’ve lived on the island since the early 70's. I have about 15,000 hours of flight time and probably made 10,000 or so landings and take offs at MVY. In 1988 the airport requested a Federal Air Regulation part 150 noise study. I was the chairman of the citizen subcommittee. Below are some things I’ve learned from my experiences.
All the technical engineering evaluations, mapping, and studies regarding noise are about as useful as trying to take precise measurements of an ice cream sunday on a hot day.
Aircraft noise has primarily two attributes, volume and quality. Quality is like music. If it’s pleasant to the ear it’s tolerable for a longer period and higher volume than it would be otherwise. Some people love to hear a Harley with straight pipes ride by, others hate it.
Both jet and propeller driven aircraft can be either noisy or relatively quiet depending on their vintage and design.
The size of an aircraft does not determine the amount of noise it produces. A Cessna 185 turning a prop at 2850 RPM on takeoff is more offensive than hearing a Jet Blue E175 departing, at least I think so.
Propeller aircraft generate the vast majority of noise from the propeller itself as a function of the tip speed in particular, far less comes from the engine. Lower the prop RPM and the noise level drops dramatically.
Departing aircraft produce higher levels of noise, but usually climb fairly quickly, and the higher they are the less noise is perceived by those on the ground.
Landing aircraft typically fly using low power levels and therefore produce less noise, but they also spend more time at a lower altitude than departing aircraft.
Noise is more noticeable in warm weather because people are outdoors and/or have their windows open, and in summer time there are more aircraft using the airport.
The closer one is to an airport the more one will experience aircraft noise, just as the closer you are to five corners when the boat is unloading in VH the more likely you’ll experience a traffic delay.
As the types of aircraft utilizing an airport change, so will the noise signature. The 1988 study was, in part, a pointless exercise because the main offender was were PBA aircraft (C402, Martin 404, DC3, YS-11, etc.) that flew low and emitted high noise levels. When PBA was shut down shortly after the study concluded, the noise problem diminished considerably ... duh.
Airplane noise is more noticeable when the general ambient noise level is low, such as early morning or late at night.
In standard operations pilots can do some things to mitigate noise but perhaps not all that much. However those pilots who want to sightsee over the island at 800 feet deserve to be made aware of their inconsiderate activity.
Weather conditions will affect flight operations in a variety of ways and will therefore affect perceived noise levels.
Some people seem to be more offended by aircraft flying over them than actually hearing them.
When it’s operationally possible I try to fly quietly, but no pilot should ever jeopardize the safety of flight just to fly quiet.
Regardless of the runway in use, an aircraft will always be flying over someone’s house.
It’s just as annoying to me as any of you when an aircraft flys directly over my house a low level while I’m on my porch trying to enjoy dinner.
Cheerfully, politely, and persistently advising pilots of the noise sensitive nature of our island and suggesting how they can be good neighbors will be significantly more effective than a pile of procedures or a raft of regulations.

If you people want to hear noise, come sit on my porch and listen to the VTA buses roaring, zooming, and spewing past, several routes at a time. Where are the noise abatement procedures for these monster buses in our downtown historic districts?